YourCT.com header image 2
← Spitzer Resigns Norwalk: Pie And Politics On Saturday →

Contraband Candy In New Haven Schools


by turfgrrl


March 14th, 2008 · 2 Comments

This is just too crazy to be belived, but exactly shows why certain school behavior policies are just designed for ridicule. If individual parents want to ban their children from eating candy, cup cakes and the smoking, then fine. But stop trying to insert parental responsibilities into school policy. I think there’s a direct correlation to the lack of focus on education and the sheer mind numbing amount of behavior policies.

Conn. School Backs Off Candy Punishment

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — An eighth-grade honors student who was suspended for a day, barred from attending an honors dinner and stripped of his title as class vice president after he was caught with contraband candy in school will get his student council post back, school officials said.

Superintendent Reginald Mayo said in a statement late Wednesday that he and principal Eleanor Turner met with student Michael Sheridan’s parents and that Turner decided to clear the boy’s record and restore him to his post.

Michael was disciplined after he was caught buying a bag of Skittles from a classmate. The classmate’s suspension also will be expunged, school officials said.

The New Haven school system banned candy sales in 2003 as part of a districtwide school wellness policy, school spokeswoman Catherine Sullivan-DeCarlo said.

“I am sorry this has happened,” Turner said in a statement. “My hope is that we can get back to the normal school routine, especially since we are in the middle of taking the Connecticut mastery test.”

Turner said she should have reinforced in writing the verbal warnings against candy transactions.

Michael had said that he didn’t realize his candy purchase was against the rules, but he did notice that the student selling the Skittles on Feb. 26 was being secretive.

Tags: Education

2 Responses so far ↓ “Contraband Candy In New Haven Schools”



  • 1 Anonymous // Mar 14, 2008 at 9:59 am

    NEW BRITAIN — Two men are considering legal action after they say they were told to leave a high school basketball game here for not standing up during the National Anthem. Seems behavior is a problem some places in Ct.

  • 2 Charles the Hammer // Mar 14, 2008 at 6:04 pm

    Stupid actions like this are the reason why the CT General Assembly voted to tie the hands of local school boards by revoking the authority to suspend students from school. Unfortunately, Hartford usurping local autonomy only drags us further down the road of government interference in private lives. Kicking a kid out of school for buying Skittles is a clear abuse that exemplifies an erosion of personal liberty by the Nanny State. We shouldn’t be surprised.

    Last year, schools were banned from selling French fries. OOOh…bad French fries…make little children fat. Before that, we made the world safer by prohibiting dodge ball. Some districts nixed the use of red pencils for correcting errors because it supposedly damaged students’ fragile self-worth.

    “Obesity” has become the new mantra of Nanny Statists. They intend to leverage concern for health into justification for telling everyone exactly how to live…oops, I mean what to eat. Reacting to an Alabama bill proposing to revoke the licenses of restaurants that served obese patrons, columnist Walter E. Williams clarified the tyranny which it engenders.

    He states:
    “Forcing one person to bear the burden of health care costs for another is not only a moral question but a major threat to personal liberty. Think about all the behaviors and lifestyles that can lead to illness and increase the burden on taxpayers. A daily salt intake exceeding 6 grams can lead to hypertension. A high-fat diet and high alcohol intake can also lead to diabetes. A sedentary lifestyle can lead to several costly diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and heart failure.

    There are many other behaviors that lead to a greater health care burden, but my question is how much control over your life you are willing to give government in the name of reducing these costs? Would you want government to regulate how much salt you use? What about government deciding how much fat and alcohol you consume? There are immense beneficial health effects of a daily 30-minute aerobic exercise. Would you support government-mandated exercise?

    You might argue that it’s none of government’s business how much fat, salt or alcohol a person consumes, even if it has adverse health care cost implications. I’d ask: Wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to helmet laws and proposed obesity laws? Last year, The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act was introduced in Congress. It’s a measure to prevent schools from serving “junk foods” such as pizza, burgers and French fries. If the government protects children from “unhealthy” meals at school, would you want government to also protect them from unhealthy meals at home?”

    Let’s tell our elected officials and school administrators in plain terms, “What our children eat is the business of parents. Butt out!”

Leave a Reply